War Risks Insurance: Marine Cover, JWC Areas and AP

Background

War risks insurance traces to the Napoleonic Wars and the state war-risk schemes stood up during the First & Second World Wars. In modern practice, war cover for ocean-going commercial tonnage is written through three channels: the commercial Lloyd’s & IUA market using the Institute War Clauses; mutual war-risk clubs, notably the Hellenic War Risks Mutual, the Combined Group of War Risks Associations, and individual P&I clubs offering war cover as an extension; and the state war-risk schemes of certain flag states. The structure of cover, the Joint War Committee Listed Areas system that drives premium for high-risk transits, and the interaction with sanctions form the practical core of the subject.

The period since 2022 raised the importance of war cover. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 reshaped Black Sea trade & triggered the largest war-risk claims environment in decades. From late 2023 the Houthi campaign against shipping in the Red Sea, the Bab el-Mandeb & the Gulf of Aden produced multiple total losses, crew deaths, and a wholesale diversion of Asia-Europe traffic around the Cape of Good Hope. Persistent piracy in the Gulf of Guinea, a Somali resurgence from late 2023, and renewed Iran-related tension in the Persian Gulf have kept war underwriting closer to the center of global trade than at any point since the Iran-Iraq tanker war of the 1980s.

Fundamentals of War Risks Cover

War cover for hull is built to mirror the underlying H&M policy. The vessel is insured against the war perils for an amount equal to, or in some cases greater than, the H&M insured value, and the cover responds to physical loss of or damage to the ship caused by those perils. The annual premium for a vessel that stays out of high-risk areas is a small fraction of the H&M premium. Most war-risk revenue comes from additional premium charged for specific high-risk transits.

The principal cover heads are distinct products that a broker assembles around a trade:

Hull war risks: loss of or damage to the vessel.

War risks P&I (Bio-Chem cover): third-party liability from war perils, including pollution, personal injury & wreck removal where a war peril is the proximate cause. Mainstream P&I is restricted by the war exclusion in club rules, and the International Group’s war-risk P&I extension fills the gap.

Loss of Hire war risks: loss of charter hire during detention, blockade, capture or seizure, where the standard Loss of Hire cover is extended.

Crew war bonus & personal accident: crew indemnification for service in war zones.

Kidnap & Ransom (K&R): ransom payments and negotiation costs where crew or ship are seized by pirates or terrorists.

Trade disruption: the financial consequences of port closures, blockades & embargoes.

In placement, a war risk is broked much like H&M: the broker builds a slip, a lead underwriter sets the terms & rate, and a following market subscribes lines to complete the full order. The hull war policy is normally a valued policy, so the agreed insured value fixes the measure of indemnity for a total loss without further proof of worth. Owners often place war cover with the same leader as H&M to keep the two policies aligned on value, period & conditions, which simplifies the proximate-cause split when a casualty could fall either side of the line. Trading warranties in the slip set out where the vessel may go without further agreement, and a breach of warranty, or entry into a listed area without notice, can suspend cover until the underwriter agrees fresh terms.

Institute War Clauses

The Institute War and Strikes Clauses (Hulls Time) dated 1/11/95 are the dominant wording for hull war risks, though much of the market still places on the older 1/10/83 edition. The clauses are written into a separate war-risk policy that runs in parallel with the H&M policy. The structure mirrors the Institute Time Clauses Hulls, but the perils insured against are precisely those the H&M policy excludes:

War, civil war, revolution, rebellion, insurrection or civil strife arising from it, or any hostile act by or against a belligerent power; capture, seizure, arrest, restraint or detainment, and the consequences of it or any attempt at it; derelict mines, torpedoes, bombs or other derelict weapons of war.

Strikes, locked-out workmen, or persons taking part in labour disturbances, riots or civil commotions; any terrorist or any person acting maliciously or from a political motive; confiscation or expropriation.

The Institute War Clauses (Cargo) 1/1/09 provide equivalent cover for cargo interests and are written together with the underlying cargo insurance using Institute Cargo Clauses A, B or C. Both the hull & the cargo war wordings are maintained by the Lloyd’s Market Association and the International Underwriting Association rather than by any one insurer.

Exclusions in Standard H&M

Clause 24 of the Institute Time Clauses Hulls 1/11/95, the war exclusion, together with the analogous Free of Capture and Seizure provision in cargo policies, excludes losses caused by war, civil war, revolution, rebellion, insurrection or civil strife arising from it; capture, seizure, arrest, restraint or detainment, barratry & piracy excepted, and the consequences of it; derelict mines, torpedoes, bombs or other derelict weapons of war; strikes, riots or civil commotions; and any terrorist or any person acting maliciously or from a political motive. In the 1/11/95 wording the strikes, malicious acts & radioactive-contamination exclusions follow at Clauses 25, 26 & 27; the numbering sits one higher than in the 1983 edition, where the war exclusion was Clause 23.

The H&M exclusion defines the exact scope of the gap that war cover fills, so the two policies together leave no unintended hole. The boundary between the two is a proximate-cause question: was the loss caused by an insured marine peril or by an insured war peril? Usually the answer is clear. Disputes arise where causes interact, such as a grounding while evading a missile strike, a fire of unknown origin in a war zone, or piracy interacting with a collision during evasive manoeuvres. Section 55 of the UK Marine Insurance Act 1906 codifies the rule: the insurer of the peril that proximately caused the loss bears it, which is why the Hull & Machinery insurer and the war underwriter each watch the causal chain closely.

JWC Listed Areas

The Joint War Committee (JWC) is a committee of London-market underwriters operating under the Lloyd’s Market Association and the International Underwriting Association. It publishes the Hull War, Piracy, Terrorism and Related Perils Listed Areas, identifying geographies considered to present elevated war, terrorism & piracy risk. Listing does not legally preclude trading, but it triggers the requirement under most war policies for the assured to notify underwriters before trading & to pay additional premium for the transit.

The list is reviewed periodically and amended between reviews when a threat shifts quickly. Areas that have carried a listing at various times include:

• Black Sea and Sea of Azov, from February 2022
• Russian and Ukrainian Black Sea waters
• Red Sea, Gulf of Aden and Bab el-Mandeb, in modified scope from 2023 with the Houthi attacks
• Yemen ports and territorial waters
• Somalia and the adjacent Indian Ocean piracy waters
• Gulf of Guinea and West African coastal waters
• Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman and the Strait of Hormuz
• Israeli ports during periods of conflict
• Lebanese, Syrian and Libyan ports during periods of conflict

Each listing sets out the precise geographical limits, often by coordinates, and those limits drive the additional-premium analysis and the contractual reporting duty.

Additional Premium (AP) Calculation

The additional premium for transit of a JWC Listed Area is the principal commercial mechanism of war-risk insurance. The structure is consistent across the market. The hull war policy carries a breach obligation under which the assured must give written notice before the vessel enters a listed area, with enough lead time, typically 48 to 72 hours, for underwriters to quote. Underwriters then quote AP as a percentage of the insured hull value, usually per seven-day period of exposure. A quote is firm for a short window, typically 48 hours, and conditional on the actual track & timing staying within stated parameters. Once accepted, the AP is held cover for the transit, with extensions, deviations & additional calls handled in real time between brokers and underwriters.

Indicative AP rates observed in the market vary substantially with threat conditions and the individual vessel:

• Black Sea Ukrainian ports, 2023 to 2024: 0.5 to 2.5 percent of hull value per seven days
• Red Sea and Bab el-Mandeb, 2024 to 2025: 0.3 to 1.5 percent per seven days, with wide variation by flag, ownership, cargo & recent track record
• Gulf of Aden in the Somali piracy era: 0.05 to 0.25 percent per seven days
• Persian Gulf during Iran-related tension: 0.05 to 0.5 percent per seven days, spiking several-fold on escalation
• Gulf of Guinea: 0.05 to 0.20 percent per seven days

The transit AP market moves in real time. A single high-profile attack can drive AP up threefold or more within hours, and the broker-underwriter dialogue during heightened tension is one of the most dynamic parts of the marine market.

Automatic Termination and Cancellation

War cover is not open-ended. The Institute War and Strikes Clauses carry an automatic-termination provision and a cancellation provision that let underwriters step back from a rapidly worsening situation. Cover can be cancelled by either party on seven days’ notice, and underwriters can reset the notice period as conditions change. Cover terminates automatically on the outbreak of war, whether or not war is declared, between any of the five named great powers: the United Kingdom, the United States, France, the Russian Federation & the People’s Republic of China. It also terminates automatically on a hostile detonation of a nuclear weapon and on requisition of the vessel for title or use. These provisions cap the market’s exposure to a great-power conflict that no premium could rate, and they are why war cover is reviewed & re-quoted continuously rather than fixed for a policy year.

Kidnap and Ransom (K&R) Extension

K&R cover responds to ransom demands after pirates, terrorists or criminal groups seize a vessel & her crew. The cover typically includes ransom payments, subject to an indemnity limit of roughly five to twenty-five million US dollars per occurrence; the fees of crisis-response consultants engaged in the negotiation, drawn from specialist firms such as Control Risks, Ambrey & S-RM; the cost of delivering the ransom, including security escorts, currency conversion & logistics; personal accident and hardship payments to crew during captivity; and the legal & consultancy costs of dealing with regulators, including OFAC and its equivalents. That last head matters because a ransom paid to a designated person or entity can itself breach sanctions.

The Somali piracy era, roughly 2008 to 2013, drove K&R into the marine market and remains the formative period. The Gulf of Guinea environment that emerged from around 2018 has been a continuing source of claims, with Nigerian, Cameroonian & Ghanaian waters generating most incidents and kidnap-for-ransom, rather than vessel hijack, the dominant tactic.

K&R cover interacts closely with the Best Management Practices developed by the industry. Compliance with the hardening, citadel, transit-reporting & armed-guard measures is often a condition of cover and a requirement for AP discounts, so the security posture a ship adopts feeds straight back into what her cover costs.

Current High-Risk Areas

Black Sea and Sea of Azov: since February 2022, all Black Sea trading carries a significant war premium. The Black Sea Grain Initiative of 2022 to 2023, and the Ukrainian-organised humanitarian corridor that followed, showed that commercial shipping can resume despite active conflict, though Russian missile strikes on commercial vessels have produced substantial claims. Schemes coordinated by Marsh & Aon, backed by Ukrainian state guarantees and London capacity, have provided dedicated cover for corridor transits.

Red Sea, Bab el-Mandeb, Gulf of Aden: from late 2023, Houthi attacks on commercial shipping produced multiple total losses and the largest diversion of commercial traffic since the Suez Canal closure of 1967 to 1975, with most Asia-Europe container traffic routing around the Cape of Good Hope. After the Gaza ceasefire took effect in October 2025, the Houthis suspended attacks on shipping, and a formal suspension held through late 2025. Traffic has not fully normalised: through the first half of 2026, Suez transits remained well below pre-crisis levels and Cape routings still absorbed a large block of container capacity, as owners weighed residual risk against the longer voyage.

Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz: tanker seizures by Iran, from the Stena Impero in 2019 through repeated incidents in 2023 to 2025, kept the Gulf in focus. The Strait of Hormuz remains a chokepoint through which roughly a fifth of global oil and about a fifth of global LNG transit, so any escalation moves the market at once. Renewed Iran-related tension through 2025 and into 2026 prompted the Joint War Committee to widen its Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman listing, and additional premium for Hormuz transits spiked several-fold within days on each flare-up.

Gulf of Guinea: Nigerian, Beninese, Cameroonian & Ghanaian waters were the most persistent piracy hotspot of the past decade, with kidnap-for-ransom the dominant tactic. Industry response under BMP-WA reduced incident frequency from peak levels, but the area stays listed and AP applies to most transits.

Somali Basin and Western Indian Ocean: Somali piracy resurged from late 2023, with the hijack of the bulk carrier Ruen in December 2023, the first successful Somali hijacking since 2017, and the Abdullah in March 2024. The Indian Ocean returned to high-risk status subject to BMP-5.

Singapore Strait: persistent low-level armed robbery against ships at anchor & underway keeps the strait a concern, though the loss profile, theft of cash & effects rather than hijack, has not produced a JWC listing. Local arrangements address most exposures.

War Risks and Sanctions Interplay

The relationship between war-risk insurance & sanctions has become one of the most demanding areas of marine practice. The key threads run through the sanctions on Russia, Iran & non-state actors.

OFAC and EU sanctions on Russia: the G7 price cap on Russian seaborne crude took effect on 5 December 2022 at USD 60 per barrel, requiring attestations along the supply chain and creating a parallel insurance regime in which non-compliant cargoes cannot obtain mainstream cover. The cap was later lowered under the EU’s dynamic mechanism, to about USD 47.60 per barrel from September 2025 and to about USD 44.10 from February 2026, with the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia & Japan aligning while the United States did not join the reductions. War-risk underwriters have largely withdrawn from Russian-linked tonnage, leaving a dark fleet trading without conventional cover.

Iran sanctions: OFAC primary & secondary sanctions have excluded Iranian-linked tonnage and cargo from mainstream marine insurance for more than a decade.

Designated-person exposures: the risk of paying a ransom to a sanctioned person, vessel or organisation is real. K&R cover requires careful coordination with sanctions compliance and may require regulatory licensing where sanctioned actors are involved.

Sanctions exclusion clauses: modern war policies carry broad sanctions exclusion clauses that void cover where payment would breach sanctions, and the drafting is revised continuously to track the changing landscape.

The compliance burden on owners, charterers, brokers, P&I clubs & war underwriters has grown since 2022 and shows no sign of easing. Real-time AIS monitoring, satellite tracking, attestation regimes & dynamic policy provisions are now standard features of the war contract.

Trade Disruption and Specialist Covers

Beyond physical-loss covers, specialist war markets offer several products. Trade disruption insurance covers the financial consequences of port closures, blockades, embargoes & similar non-physical disruptions, and often sits alongside a force majeure analysis under the governing charter. Crew war bonus indemnifies the additional wages payable for service in declared war zones, an obligation under many ITF collective bargaining agreements. Loss of hire war extends the standard Loss of Hire cover to include detention by war perils. Confiscation & expropriation cover is sometimes structured as a political-risk credit product rather than a marine one. War-on-land cover addresses vessels in port or shipyard exposed to war perils ashore, which matters where ships are under repair in conflict zones.

Claims Handling in War Risks

War-risk claims run through the same brokers & adjusters as H&M, but with added complexity. The proximate-cause analysis is often contested between H&M and war underwriters, particularly for partial losses after damage in a high-risk area. The political & regulatory dimension, sanctions clearance, dealings with foreign governments, and recovery of ships held in foreign ports, calls for specialist legal expertise. The aggregation question, how multiple losses from a single conflict event are grouped for reinsurance, is critical and follows specific contract wording, often the Lloyd’s single-event definitions. Recovery can be slow: the Stena Impero was held in Iran for about two months in 2019, and the crew of the Galaxy Leader were held for over a year before their release in January 2025.

Hull War Risks vs War Risks P&I

The hull war policy and the war-risk P&I extension are distinct covers for different exposures. Hull war risks indemnifies the assured for physical loss of or damage to the ship from war perils, on the same property-indemnity principles as H&M, and is written by much the same underwriting community. War-risk P&I indemnifies the assured for third-party liabilities from war perils: pollution after a missile strike, injury & death claims by crew, and wreck removal after a war loss. Standard cover from the P&I clubs excludes war through the club rules, and the war-risk P&I extension, arranged through the International Group, fills the gap. The two are structured so a single war event finds no seam between property & liability: the hull war underwriter handles the ship, the war P&I cover handles the liabilities, and the contractual coordination keeps both responding together.

Cargo War Cover Operational Aspects

Cargo war cover, written under the Institute War Clauses (Cargo) 1/1/09, has several features that set it apart from ordinary cargo cover. Its period of cover is on-water only: it attaches when the goods are loaded on the overseas vessel and ends on the earliest of discharge at destination, expiry of 15 days from arrival, or commencement of onward land transit. That is narrower than the warehouse-to-warehouse profile of standard cargo cover. Many cargo war policies carry warranties as to vessel acceptability, classification, age & trading history, so ships bound for high-risk areas or with sanctions-affected ownership may need specific approval before cover attaches. Held-cover provisions keep cargo insured where a vessel is unexpectedly diverted into a war zone or war breaks out in transit, subject to additional premium & conditions and to limits on duration. Underwriters watch aggregations closely, both across cargoes on a single vessel and across cargoes exposed to a single port.

Wordings Beyond the Institute Clauses

The Institute War Clauses dominate the London market, but other wordings serve specific contexts. The Nordic Marine Insurance Plan brings war risks inside its broader hull framework, with chapters addressing war perils, an approach that differs from the standalone Institute model. The American Institute Hull War Risks wording is used predominantly for US-flag tonnage & US Maritime Administration programmes. Major fleet operators sometimes negotiate bespoke war programmes that combine elements of the Institute Clauses with modifications for a particular trading pattern, fleet structure & risk appetite.

Practical Operational Considerations

Running a vessel under war cover involves a set of routines. Ship managers operate AIS-based monitoring that alerts the broker & underwriters when a vessel approaches a listed area, triggering the AP quote. Routing decisions increasingly favour going around high-risk areas even where AP is available, reflecting crew safety, security & reputation; the Cape of Good Hope routing in place of Suez is the clearest current example, and the choice usually falls to whoever carries the cost and the employment risk under the voyage or time charter . Service in declared war zones triggers ITF crew-bonus obligations, typically doubled basic wages plus enhanced sick pay & death and disability benefits. BMP-compliant hardening, razor wire, citadels, water cannons & hardened bridge windows, is often a condition of cover and a route to AP discounts, so its cost is weighed against the AP saving. Privately Contracted Armed Security Personnel embarked for a transit need approvals from flag states, port states & underwriters, and standardised contracts such as BIMCO GUARDCON with clear rules of engagement. Continuous reporting to underwriters during a transit, with daily position reports, deviation requests & incident notifications, is normally required.

Recovery and Salvage in War Casualties

Recovering ships after war casualties presents particular problems. Where a vessel is detained by a foreign government, as with the Iranian seizure of the Stena Impero in 2019 or the Houthi seizure of the Galaxy Leader in 2023, recovery needs diplomatic, legal & commercial coordination over long periods. Salvage in an active conflict zone is logistically & legally hard: salvors need armed escorts, deconfliction with belligerent forces, and operational windows that can close without warning. The salvage of the tanker Sounion in September 2024, after Houthi attacks left her ablaze in the Red Sea with about a million barrels of crude aboard, required a multinational-escorted operation to tow her clear and avert a spill several times the size of the Exxon Valdez. Wreck removal after a war casualty may be deferred until conditions allow, leaving underwriters with liability accruals while a wreck stays in place. Recovery from a sanctioned jurisdiction adds a sanctions layer, since payments to local authorities, port charges, towage & pilotage all need screening.

Mutual War Risks and State Schemes

Beyond the commercial market, two alternative providers exist. Mutual war-risk clubs cover members on a pooled basis, as P&I clubs do: the Hellenic War Risks Mutual is the largest, covering predominantly Greek-controlled tonnage, and the Combined Group of War Risks Associations coordinates smaller mutuals, with members sharing losses mutually. State war-risk schemes give certain flag states a backstop for essential trade during major conflicts. The United States runs the War Risk Insurance Programme under Title XII of the Merchant Marine Act 1936, administered by MARAD; the United Kingdom has historically used Ministry of Defence & Department for Transport arrangements. These schemes have been activated in past wars and remain available as contingency.

Cyber Risk and War Risks

The intersection of cyber & war cover is one of the fastest-moving areas of marine insurance. War policies generally exclude cyber: the Lloyd’s Market Association Marine Cyber Exclusion (LMA5402) removes losses arising from cyber operations & cyber-related war, while LMA5403 is the affirmative Marine Cyber Endorsement that writes limited non-malicious cover back in. Where a cyber attack is attributed to a state actor, an underwriter may apply the war exclusion even where the operation falls short of traditional armed conflict, as the war or warlike operations definition has widened to reach certain cyber activity. The 2017 NotPetya attack, attributed to Russian state actors, triggered major cyber-insurance disputes in the Mondelez & Merck cases; those arose under property cyber covers, but the reasoning bears on marine cyber-war exclusions. Bespoke marine cyber covers have developed to bridge the gap between traditional war risks, which exclude cyber, and traditional cyber covers, which exclude marine & war, though capacity sits with a small group of specialists and remains thin for the largest exposures. A cyber attack on a vessel’s navigation, propulsion or cargo-handling systems could cause physical damage with very large exposures, and the current framework addresses that only in part.

Maritime Security Operations

The link between war cover & physical maritime security has grown into a substantial industry. Maritime security companies providing armed guards, transit escorts, hardening, threat intelligence & crisis response include Ambrey, Diaplous & Solace Global, working closely with underwriters and brokers. Specialist intelligence providers, among them Risk Intelligence, Dryad Global, Control Risks & EOS Risk, supply threat assessments, routing advice & incident analysis to underwriters and operators. Central reporting frameworks anchor the response: UKMTO handles reporting for vessels in the Indian Ocean & Red Sea theatre, MSCHOA coordinates the international response to Somali piracy, and the Bahrain-based International Maritime Security Construct coordinates coalition responses in the Gulf. Industry bodies including BIMCO, INTERTANKO, INTERCARGO & the International Chamber of Shipping coordinate responses, working with underwriters & security providers on standardised contracts and best practice.

Pricing Dynamics and Market Capacity

The war market runs on limited dedicated capacity that swings with conditions. Roughly 15 to 20 Lloyd’s syndicates participate meaningfully in marine war, with leadership concentrated in a few specialists including Beazley, Hiscox, Brit, Munich Re Specialty & MS Amlin; a similar number of IUA companies offer capacity as part of broader marine programmes. Total committed marine war capacity is estimated at roughly 5 to 10 billion US dollars, depending on layering & the specific peril, and a major event can consume a large share of it quickly. AP rates for a specific area can move by orders of magnitude within hours of an event, which is a real planning problem for charterers & shippers. Reinsurance sits with a small group of specialist reinsurers, and capacity tightens after major events. The market entered a sustained hard phase from 2022, accelerated through 2023 to 2024 on the Houthi attacks, Iran tension & multiple total losses, and rate increases of 100 percent or more became common for high-risk transits.

Crew Implications of War Risk Trading

Trading through high-risk areas carries direct consequences for crew. The International Transport Workers’ Federation has negotiated war-zone provisions into collective agreements covering thousands of vessels; the standard terms double basic wages, double death & disability compensation, grant paid leave for refusing transit, and give a right of repatriation at the owner’s expense. Some flag states add requirements on ships transiting high-risk areas, including pre-transit notifications, crew safety briefings & mandatory hardening. Most modern agreements let an individual seafarer refuse to transit a specified war zone; a refusing crew member must be repatriated & replaced, with the cost and delay falling on the operator. P&I cover for crew injury & death is often supplemented by war-zone bonus provisions and personal-accident covers funded by the operator or charterer. Extended exposure to threat during transits is a documented mental-health risk for seafarers, and welfare bodies including the Sailors’ Society, ISWAN & Stella Maris provide support.

Settlement Examples and Recent Claims

Recent claims show how the cover works in practice.

Galaxy Leader, November 2023, Houthi seizure: the vehicle carrier was seized in the Red Sea with her crew taken hostage. Hull war underwriters faced a prolonged detention with limited recovery prospects. The 25 crew were released in January 2025 during the Gaza ceasefire, and the ship itself was struck by an Israeli airstrike in July 2025. The case set a benchmark for Red Sea war pricing.

True Confidence, March 2024: the bulk carrier was struck by a Houthi anti-ship ballistic missile off Aden on 6 March 2024, killing three crew, the first fatal Houthi strike on merchant shipping. She was abandoned ablaze and became a constructive total loss rather than sinking, with major hull war & war P&I payouts.

Rubymar, February to March 2024: the fertilizer-laden bulk carrier was struck in the Bab el-Mandeb on 18 February 2024, left an oil slick around eighteen miles long, and sank on 2 March 2024, the first vessel lost in the campaign. A major hull war claim with complex environmental exposure.

Tutor, June 2024: the bulk carrier was struck by a Houthi uncrewed surface vessel and then a missile in the southern Red Sea on 12 June 2024 and sank days later, the second ship lost in the campaign, with one crew member killed.

Sounion, August to September 2024: the crude tanker was attacked & set ablaze in the Red Sea in August 2024 carrying about a million barrels of crude, then salvaged and towed clear in September under multinational escort, averting a spill several times the size of the Exxon Valdez.

Magic Seas and Eternity C, July 2025: after a lull of several months, Houthi attacks resumed. The bulk carrier Magic Seas was attacked on 6 July 2025 and sank the next day, with her crew rescued; the bulk carrier Eternity C was attacked from 7 July 2025 and sank on 9 July, with four seafarers killed and survivors taken and later released.

Stena Impero, July 2019, Iran: the tanker was seized in the Strait of Hormuz and held for about two months, a detention claim resolved on release without major hull damage.

Mercer Street, July 2021, Iran: the tanker was struck by an Iranian drone off Oman, killing two crew, a Romanian master & a British security guard, with personal-injury claims under war P&I.

Conclusion

War risks insurance is the separate marine cover that answers for the war, capture, seizure, mine, terrorism & strikes perils that the H&M and cargo policies exclude, priced mostly through additional premium for transits of the Joint War Committee’s listed areas. Its architecture, hull war and war P&I running in parallel with the marine covers, the breach-and-notify AP mechanism, the K&R and trade-disruption extensions, and the mutual and state-scheme alternatives, has held up through the heaviest claims environment in decades. Since 2022 the trade has been reshaped by the Black Sea war, the Red Sea campaign & its 2025 suspension, the Somali resurgence, and the sanctions & price-cap regime that produced the dark fleet. A practitioner reads a war placement as three moving parts at once: the wording, the listed-area map, and the sanctions overlay, none of which can be assessed in isolation.

Limitations

The rates in this article are indicative market figures, not quotations. Additional premium for any specific transit turns on the vessel, her flag & ownership, the cargo, the exact track & timing, and the threat picture on the day, and it can move by an order of magnitude within hours; only a broker’s firm quote binds a number. The clause references follow the 1/11/95 Institute wordings, but the 1/10/83 editions & various later LMA and Nordic wordings remain in use, and a particular contract is governed by its own schedule, warranties & endorsements rather than by the representative wording described here. Casualty details reflect reported facts at the time of writing and remain subject to formal investigation, adjustment & any litigation between hull and war underwriters. Sanctions positions, price-cap levels and the listed-area map change continuously, so the current OFAC, EU & JWC instruments always govern over any figure quoted in a general overview. For a real placement or claim, the governing authorities are the policy wording, the applicable clauses, the current sanctions instruments, and the advice of the broker, adjuster & legal counsel on the matter.

Related Articles

• Hull and Machinery Insurance
• P&I Clubs and the International Group
• Loss of Hire Insurance
• Cargo Insurance and Institute Cargo Clauses
• General Average and York-Antwerp Rules
• Maritime Piracy and BMP
• LLMC Convention on Limitation of Maritime Claims
• Force Majeure in Shipping
• Voyage Charter Party
• Time Charter Party